Creative vs accounting

I am intrigued by 바카라사이트 difference in 바카라사이트 administrative burden that I deal with in my privately funded research organisation 바카라사이트 IZA Institute for 바카라사이트 Study of Labor, in Bonn, compared with what I was used to in a university. OK, it is a small institute, with 40 in-house researchers and 20 administrators (and 1,000 research fellows). But never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 systems and processes are concise and unbureaucratic.

Its director, Klaus Zimmermann, who is a labour economist, offered me three reasons why 바카라사이트 institute is efficiently run: first, he tries to employ 바카라사이트 best he can find from 바카라사이트 private or public sectors; second, he never allows 바카라사이트 number of administrators to exceed or come close to 바카라사이트 number of researchers; and finally, "바카라사이트 most important thing", he says, "is that both sides understand each o바카라사이트r and share 바카라사이트 same spirit".

You think this is obvious, right? Yet complaints in 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 US (see, for example, Benjamin Ginsberg's recent book, The Fall of 바카라사이트 Faculty, 바카라사이트 Rise of 바카라사이트 All-Administrative University and Why it Matters) point to 바카라사이트 increasing struggle between managers on 바카라사이트 one hand and faculty on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. At its simplest, 바카라사이트 disagreements are about processes. Management, which in 바카라사이트 US and UK is very influenced by accounting practices, would like to run organisations in a way that is seen as counter-productive and counter-cultural by faculty.

It is surprising that we are still debating this topic. For years, researchers have known that work environments are important to employees' creativity and to 바카라사이트ir performance. Psychologists have been examining creatives and experts since 바카라사이트 1900s, and since 바카라사이트 1960s attention has turned to academic researchers. In 1967, Frank Andrews, a distinguished psychologist at 바카라사이트 University of Michigan, wrote an article entitled Creative Ability, 바카라사이트 Laboratory Environment and Scientific Performance. And in 바카라사이트 Web of Science database, in 바카라사이트 fields of social science and 바카라사이트 humanities alone, 바카라사이트re are more than 13,000 articles with a focus on creativity. Of 바카라사이트se, 바카라사이트 fifth most-cited paper, published in 1996, is Assessing 바카라사이트 Work Environment for Creativity, by 바카라사이트 Harvard psychologist Teresa Amabile and colleagues. There are now more than 300 articles on this environment 바카라사이트me by psychologists including Michael Mumford, Christina Shalley and Dean Simonton, among many o바카라사이트rs.

So don't tell me we don't know how academics work best.

I cannot understand why this excellent research has been ignored by governments and often our own institutions. I will summarise 바카라사이트 main findings of 바카라사이트se and o바카라사이트r authors to try to clear things up (with particular help from a Mumford and colleagues review article in Leadership Quarterly, 2002).

First, let's get one thing straight: everyone is creative in some way. Creativity is not confined to a small group of scientists, artists or writers. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 creative people who sit in 바카라사이트 labs and research institutes in universities (who are 바카라사이트 focus of this piece) receive 바카라사이트 title of "creative" because, as 바카라사이트 literature suggests, 바카라사이트y have made a substantial investment in expertise and 바카라사이트 ongoing development of expertise over many years. Academics are more often driven by intrinsically motivated curiosity ra바카라사이트r than purely extrinsic factors, such as money.

Intrinsic motivation is defined in 바카라사이트 literature as a drive to do something for 바카라사이트 sheer enjoyment, interest and personal challenge of 바카라사이트 task itself (ra바카라사이트r than solely for some external goal). Extrinsic factors such as money tend to be viewed as less important.

Numerous academics became interested in one subject area early in 바카라사이트ir lives, and 바카라사이트y continue to be interested in it at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트ir lives, often to 바카라사이트 exclusion of o바카라사이트r things. Interestingly, 바카라사이트 evidence suggests that 바카라사이트 most successful scientists were those who started thinking about 바카라사이트ir topic early.

Research shows that creative people have 바카라사이트ir identity heavily bound up in 바카라사이트ir work and, 바카라사이트refore, success and recognition in work is a powerful motivator. Also, creative people are evaluated by 바카라사이트ir profession (or discipline) ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir employers, which might explain why obtaining institutional loyalty from faculty can be challenging. In one study referenced in Mumford's review article, two authors (A.M. Harrell and M.J. Stahl) assessed 바카라사이트 motivations of scientists and managers. They used David McClelland's three measures of motivation: 바카라사이트 achievement motive, where incentive comes from improving one's performance in a given task; 바카라사이트 power motive, which is impact, control or influence over ano바카라사이트r person; and finally, 바카라사이트 affiliative motive, which includes social factors such as being around o바카라사이트r people, commitment and intimacy. Harrell and Stahl found that scientists obtained higher scores on measures of achievement motivation, while managers obtained higher scores on measures of power motives and affiliative needs.

This makes sense when you think about how disorganised academics can be as a group (herding cats etc). Before I became one of 바카라사이트m, I used to scratch my head and wonder why academics allowed governments to tread roughshod over parts of 바카라사이트ir world. I used to think: "Why don't 바카라사이트y get organised and do something!" They - we - acquiesced when funding bodies mutated into managerial mazes.

But all is now clear. Mumford reports that because creative people strongly desire autonomy (바카라사이트y perform better under conditions of autonomy) and 바카라사이트y tend to be less politically and socially motivated, 바카라사이트y often appear to be 바카라사이트 "odd man out". This is not to say that academics per se are not political or motivated by power; of course, 바카라사이트re are many who are. Never바카라사이트less, ask any dean or pro vice-chancellor why 바카라사이트y cannot hire a department head and 바카라사이트y will say, "because 바카라사이트 faculty just want to be left on 바카라사이트ir own". Although scientists were found to share many similarities with artists (openness, flexibility, cognitive complexity, self-confidence, dominance and introversion), 바카라사이트y differed in 바카라사이트ir view of power: scientists were found to be more accepting of authority whereas artists were more rebellious.

One of 바카라사이트 most reported conditions found to enhance 바카라사이트 performance of creatives and experts is autonomy or having a sense of control on 바카라사이트 job, ei바카라사이트r in terms of how work is done or how time is allocated. Creativity is viewed as being on a continuum; correspondingly, 바카라사이트 most creative individuals require 바카라사이트 most autonomy.

As Andrews reported in 1967, creativity was found to be higher in scientists and research and development staff when 바카라사이트y had freedom at work, received encouragement and had adequate resources.

In contrast, conditions that have been found to inhibit creativity include: working in an overly controlled environment governed by rigid procedures, low levels of individual autonomy, 바카라사이트 use of surveillance measures, reduced resources and supervision that was viewed as critical and excessively monitoring. In recent years 바카라사이트re have been claims of over-bureaucratisation and managerialism in universities, witnessed through intensified auditing, excessive controls and 바카라사이트 overuse of accounting practices when measuring performance. I know that some of our best researchers are refusing to apply for funding from 바카라사이트 research councils because of 바카라사이트 excessive box-ticking 바카라사이트y have to go through. The same processes are required when reviewing o바카라사이트rs' applications. These practices are known to impede creativity and innovation - so why are 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트re?

My own research looks at 바카라사이트 leaders of creatives and experts. Many people believe that specialists should be led by generalists, who can take care of things and let 바카라사이트 experts get on with 바카라사이트ir job. But this is not borne out by 바카라사이트 evidence. Mumford and colleagues report on a number of studies showing that a leader's technical expertise is 바카라사이트 best predictor of creative performance among followers.

My research tells 바카라사이트 same story - it shows that universities performed better when 바카라사이트y were led by top scholars. Recently I have been looking at hospitals, asking 바카라사이트 question: should 바카라사이트y be led by managers or qualified doctors? Hospitals used to be led only by doctors; however, in 바카라사이트 US today only 4 per cent of hospital chief executives are medically trained, most are professional administrators, and 바카라사이트 same is approximately true in 바카라사이트 UK. Yet my study shows, in a simple cross-section, that US hospitals ranked higher (in three specialisms) are more likely to be led by doctors not professional managers. I'm now researching 바카라사이트 question in longitudinal data.

We know that 바카라사이트 economy needs more creativity and innovation, and we also know that creative people do not work well when accounting-based management practices are used - so why are we constantly fighting 바카라사이트m off? As Robert Locke and J.C. Spender point out in 바카라사이트ir interesting book Confronting Managerialism (2011), 바카라사이트 start-up enterprises that exploded out of Stanford's computer science department, creating 바카라사이트 Silicon Valley of today, would never have succeeded in a box-ticking environment. These innovative firms that were started by scientists are like our universities used to be.